Conversely, it has been stated that perception is not dependent on language. Knowing a different language gives us insight to the cultural concepts, however it may not be significant, as we do not always speak what we think or need to. For instance, think of the painting by Edvard Munch, “The Scream”, which conveys fear and horror. When people see the painting they do not need words to perceive how the figure feels or identify with him. Therefore in essence language does not play a role in perception.
If one imagines the color spectrum, it is a continuum, each color gradually blending into the next; there are no sharp boundaries. But we impose boundaries; we talk of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. We do not have words are every single color in the color spectrum but does that mean we do not perceive color? There is research that provides evidence that perception is not dependent on language. Researchers have discovered that the early forms of language had even fewer words for different colors. However, just because they didn’t have a word for red it does not mean that they did not see red. When researches taught these people the words for the different colors they then had it labeled. Language is merely a label, a expression of what we have perceived. I personally believe that no matter which language you speak or which cultural norms you are used to, everyone is capable of intellectual thought and perception.
One may state that emotion is dependent on language. For example, the use of emotive language not only in literature but in everyday speech, conveys a person’s emotion towards something. One may say “the fetus can be terminated up to 23 weeks” whereas another may say “They allow the baby to be murdered as late as 23 weeks.” Essentially both mean the same thing but the difference lies in the emotional message it conveys. An emotion is triggered by a stimulus; if that stimulus is verbal (such as emotive language) then the emotion is controlled by language. Therefore we can deduce that language provokes an emotional response and it is tool to depict emotion.
Furthermore emotion can be conveyed by simple body language. For example, I went to the ballet of “Romeo and Juliet” which was conducted entirely through body language to depict a certain emotion and event. The movement, gestures and facial expressions of the dancers conveyed their emotions to me. When Juliet was happy her dances and movements would be much more energetic and active compared to when she was sad. Therefore we can see how emotion is dependent language. On the other hand, when thinking about body language, it can be very misleading as it is ambiguous. If I was running away from somebody this body language could connate to several different emotions, such as fear, hatred or maybe I was simply in a rush. It cannot convey emotion accurately. However because language does not accurately portray emotions does this mean that we don’t feel them? Just because we do not have word or gesture for an emotion does this mean we have no concept of them?
Stating that language controls emotions is controversial as we don’t always express what we feel. People may argue that some emotions are indescribable and therefore they don’t really exist. However imagine if we did not have a word for love or fear does that mean that we would not feel those emotions? Obviously not. Think about the word “love” can it really be defined? Language merely gives emotions a title, which is a very insignificant part.
One can argue that reasoning is dependant on language as the use of language influences the way we reason. This is because reasoning is essentially analyzing statements. For example, take the elections opposing parties will exploit language to gain supporters. They use tactics such as emotive language and criticism in order for them to rise above the other parties. In this case we can say that reason is dependent on language.
Reasoning is split into two categories, inductive logic and deductive logic. Inductive logic is the conclusion of a general law from a specific instance whereas deductive logic is a specific conclusion drawn from general sets of principles. The problem with inductive logic is that the initial surmise must be correct, and they are controlled by language. Similarly the problem with deductive logic is that the expression and indeed possibly even the perception of them are controlled by language.
Inductive reasoning may be argued as not being influenced by language, as it is based on making observations. However, in order to make observations, then process them to form a conclusion, one must think- and thinking is done in the form of a language. Again referring back to the Sapir-Whorf theory which states that language is deterministic and what we think is restricted by our language. Conversely, another theory called the Mentalese Theory suggest that thoughts and language are two separate entities and that just because one isn’t able to express something through language; it doesn’t necessarily indicate that one isn’t actually feeling or experiencing it. For example chimpanzees are not affected by language however research has proven that not only can they identify shapes and color but they can organize them into groups accordingly. This provides evidence to say that everyone is capable of intellectual thought process and reasoning without language.
Ultimately I disagree with the quote “all the way of knowing are controlled by language.” It does play a significant part in expressing emotion, perception and reasoning however it does not restrict them. The lack of language does not prevent us from thinking and therefore knowing. If we language controls though then how did language itself arise?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kaye, Larry. “The Thought of Language.” A Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. 0nline. Available .
Lord, Spencer. “Weltanschauung.” Weltanschauung: Do I Dare Disturb the Universe?. 10 May 2005. Online. Available .
“The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” The Art of Suggestion. Online. Available .
